Women Sue Wal-Mart Over Morning-After Pill [merged w/ poll]

[Venusian]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_us/wal_mart_contraception;_ylt=AonVFlN7bKTWs.kdOPmkOF.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Women Sue Wal-Mart Over Morning-After Pill

Thu Feb 2, 7:15 AM ET

BOSTON - Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.
ADVERTISEMENT

The lawsuit, filed in state court, seeks to force the company to carry the morning-after pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

Wal-Mart carries the morning-after pill in Illinois only, where it is required under state law, said Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart.

Fogleman said the company "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons." He would not elaborate. But in a letter to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, a Wal-Mart attorney said the store chain does not regard the drug as "commonly prescribed."

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its drugstores





What's the rational for the govt telling companies what they have to sell? I guess I can see a public health need of no pharmacy in the state stocked certain drugs, but "commonly prescribed" seems too vague

[classicman2]

I wonder how our pro-abortion, libertarian members feel about this? The must be conflicted. ;)

[wmansir]

You don't have to be pro-abortion to support the use of this pill as it works the same way the regular birth control pill by blocking egg release, fertilization or implantation. That is why they have a 20% failure rate, because sometimes it is too late, and the pill does not terminate an established pregnancy.

[Tommy Ceez]

So...go to CVS and get the pill.

[classicman2]

You don't have to be pro-abortion to support the use of this pill as it works the same way the regular birth control pill by blocking egg release, fertilization or implantation. That is why they have a 20% failure rate, because sometimes it is too late, and the pill does not terminate an established pregnancy.

I see you totally missed the point.

[Nazgul]

So...go to CVS and get the pill.

And miss out on low prices?

[wendersfan]

So...go to CVS and get the pill.Um, yeah.

I guess this would be a bigger problem for women living some place like Wyoming, but I don't think one should be able to force businesses to carry products you want them to carry.

[resinrats]

Walmart does sell emergency abortion supplies. Go to housewares and pick up a metal coat hanger.

[mosquitobite]

So...go to CVS and get the pill.
EXACTLY! Is a lawsuit needed? No. Don't like Wal-Mart's practices, boycott their pharmacy. Free markets at work! :D

And also, if you go to PP, they're free. Duh.

[movielib]

I wonder how our pro-abortion, libertarian members feel about this? The must be conflicted. ;)
Not at all.

Wal-Mart has the right to not stock it.

Is that non-conflicted enough for you? ;)

Edit: That's the great thing about basing one's opinions on principle instead of on the results one desires. As has been said: "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."

[classicman2]

:up:

That's the correct answer. :)

[SeekOnce]

The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."
Yeah, good luck with that.

[movielib]

:up:

That's the correct answer. :)
My rate of being right according to you has now risen to 3.2%. :banana:

[al_bundy]

I've picked up meds for my wife and a lot of times we have to wait for them to order the drug. Unless some drug is needed on a daily basis, it's not uncommon for a pharmacy to have to order it.

[Red Dog]

Not at all.

Wal-Mart has the right to not stock it.

Is that non-conflicted enough for you? ;)


:thumbsup:

Easy question. NEXT!

[battlingbutler]

I'm a pro-life libertarian and I am offended by these women what murder and now are suing to force someone to aid in that murder.

[classicman2]

I'm a pro-life libertarian and I am offended by these women what murder and now are suing to force someone to aid in that murder.

Hmm! You seem to be one of the 54%. ;)

[wendersfan]

My rate of being right according to you has now risen to 3.2%. :banana:rotfl

[Michael Ballack]

Hmm! You seem to be one of the 54%. ;)

What's that 54%, people who actually think birth control kills something?

[classicman2]

What's that 54%, people who actually think birth control kills something?

The 54%, according to the polls, that believe abortion is murder.

[Sdallnct]

IMHO they are suing Wal-Mart for reasons that have nothing to do with getting the pill. A - They know people are ready hate wal-mart, so they it is easy to pile on. B - They know anything having to do with Wal-mart will end up in the paper. C - It is a nice safe target with no backlash. Can you imagine if they sued Bill's Drug Store in Temple Texas!!! The the store would be the victime, not the poor people who can't get this drug.

[JasonF]

The 54%, according to the polls, that believe abortion is murder.

Polls on abortion are worthless. I've seen polls that say a majority of people think abortion is murder. But I've also seen polls that say a majority of people think abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances and that the decision to have an abortion should be up to a woman and her doctor. You can't really reconcile "it's murder" with "it should be legal."

[classicman2]

Polls on abortion are worthless. I've seen polls that say a majority of people think abortion is murder. But I've also seen polls that say a majority of people think abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances and that the decision to have an abortion should be up to a woman and her doctor. You can't really reconcile "it's murder" with "it should be legal."

Everyone knows (I hope they do) that American's view on abortion makes little sense. 54% of Americans believe abortion is murder according to the polls. Yet, as you, better than 60% believe it should remain an alternative.

It's not the only issue that Americans are conflicted on.

[Numanoid]

73% of people are idiots, so none of this surprises me.

[Shoveler]

Next up... sue independent pharmacies that are closed on Sundays (because everyone knows what a big night Saturday night is). -ohbfrank-

[classicman2]

I'm contemplating bringing a suit against Chick-fil-a for not opening on Sunday.

[Vibiana]

I'm going to sue Wal-Mart because I can buy a gun there, but not a switchblade.

[Sdallnct]

I'm contemplating bringing a suit against Chick-fil-a for not opening on Sunday.

Funny you say that, I LOVE chick-fil-a and hate they are closed on Sunday. But love the fact they stood up for what they believed and close.

I'm so confused...

[wendersfan]

I'm contemplating bringing a suit against Chick-fil-a for not opening on Sunday.
I think I'll sue McDonalds for not selling the veggie burgers in their American restaurants that they sell in Britain. They taste better than the ones you get at Burger King.

[VinVega]

I'm contemplating bringing a suit against Chick-fil-a for not opening on Sunday.
They lose a lot of business from me for that, simply because I always wind up having a hankering for some Chick on a Sunday. :(

I like that they give their workers off though and they can still stay in business as a fast food chain. :up:

[mosquitobite]

They lose a lot of business from me for that, simply because I always wind up having a hankering for some Chick on a Sunday. :(

I like that they give their workers off though and they can still stay in business as a fast food chain. :up:

Up here, they're one of the few restaurants that serve sweet tea, really GOOD sweet tea. :( And I always crave it on Sundays...

[Bushdog]

I wonder how our pro-abortion, libertarian members feel about this? The must be conflicted. ;)

I see you totally missed the point.

Apparently you did, too.

First of all, your comment technichaly applies to like 0% of the world population. Who is pro-abortion? It is pro-choice.

And I don't see the conflict, either. State law allows the business to carry the drugs it chooses (within limits), they are being law abiding. What's the problem?

[Bushdog]

Polls on abortion are worthless. I've seen polls that say a majority of people think abortion is murder. But I've also seen polls that say a majority of people think abortion should be legal under at least some circumstances and that the decision to have an abortion should be up to a woman and her doctor. You can't really reconcile "it's murder" with "it should be legal."The polls are not designed to reconcile it. They are written by people, many of which who have agendas.

[classicman2]

Apparently you did, too.

First of all, your comment technichaly applies to like 0% of the world population. Who is pro-abortion? It is pro-choice.

And I don't see the conflict, either. State law allows the business to carry the drugs it chooses (within limits), they are being law abiding. What's the problem?

I prefer not to deal in euphemisms.

[Duran]

Not at all.

Wal-Mart has the right to not stock it.

Is that non-conflicted enough for you? ;)

Edit: That's the great thing about basing one's opinions on principle instead of on the results one desires. As has been said: "If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself."

:thumbsup:

[RayChuang]

These groups really want to tie-up Wal-Mart in the courts until it reaches the Supreme Court, right? Is this what Americans want? :down:

[Mrs. Danger]

And then there are the people who think ANY kind of birth control is immoral.

Wal-Mart has a business to run, and anything perishable that costs more to stock than they can make selling it, is not going to be on their shelves.

Are there THAT many rapes around there?

[Tommy Ceez]

And then there are the people who think ANY kind of birth control is immoral.

Wal-Mart has a business to run, and anything perishable that costs more to stock than they can make selling it, is not going to be on their shelves.

Are there THAT many rapes around there?

Wouldnt you get rape drugs from a hospital emergency room (ALONG WITH AN AIDS TEST!!!)?

[Breakfast with Girls]

I wonder how our <b>pro-abortion</b>, libertarian members feel about this?I'm surprised so many people let this fly without a -rolleyes-

[movielib]

I'm surprised so many people let this fly without a -rolleyes-
I don't have that big a problem with the term "pro-abortion" although I think it is not exactly accurate and prefer "pro-abortion rights." I don't like either of the terms pro-life or pro-choice because each implies something to the other side which is untrue and unfair.

So my preferred terms are "pro-abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" (or "anti-abortion rights"). I think those terms are accurate and fair.

[classicman2]

The PC euphemism is no longer pro-choice. It's now reproductive rights for women.

[JasonF]

The polls are not designed to reconcile it. They are written by people, many of which who have agendas.

I agree, which is why I roll my eyes every time somebody quotes a poll on abortion to support their point.

[JasonF]

As for whether anyone is actually pro-abortion, I think my signature says it all. Have any of you ever met a woman who wants to have an abortion?

[classicman2]

47% of the women seeking abortion - it's not the first one

[mikehunt]

Apparently you did, too.

First of all, your comment technichaly applies to like 0% of the world population. Who is pro-abortion? It is pro-choice.

not in classicman world
he doesn't seem to understand that "choice" includes multiple options, only one of which might be abortion

[classicman2]

not in classicman world
he doesn't seem to understand that "choice" includes multiple options, only one of which might be abortion

Yes or no answer: Are you in favor of the availability of abortion?

[classicman2]

Yes or no answer please: Are you in favor of the availabilty of abortion as an option?

[Mrs. Danger]

Wouldnt you get rape drugs from a hospital emergency room (ALONG WITH AN AIDS TEST!!!)?

Okay, then. Are there THAT many silly women who accidentally have sex without birth control?

That's what the "morning after" pill is for, you know.

I suspect it costs a bit more than a condom. So so STD's.

[grundle]

I wonder how our pro-abortion, libertarian members feel about this? The must be conflicted. ;)
I am pro choice. I am against the government getting involved in this.

So Wal Mart doesn't want to sell it. Then that creates a market niche for some other business to sell it. That's capitalism.

Why do you think I would be conflicted over this?

[Rockmjd23]

Okay, then. Are there THAT many silly women who accidentally have sex without birth control?
Yes.

[grundle]

There's no such thing as "accidentally" having sex.

[grundle]

I wonder if someone will sue Planned Parenthood because they don't sell 23 gallon jars of mayonnaise.

[ShallowHal]

They sell condoms at WalMart, right? -other-

[mosquitobite]

I wonder if someone will sue Planned Parenthood because they don't sell 23 gallon jars of mayonnaise.

rotfl

[VinVega]

They sell condoms at WalMart, right? -other-
For now.

[JasonF]

I wonder if someone will sue Planned Parenthood because they don't sell 23 gallon jars of mayonnaise.

Is there a law requiring PP to carry all commonly used condiments? Because as the original article explains, there is a law requiring Wal-Mart to carry all commonly prescribed medicines.

[mosquitobite]

Is there a law requiring PP to carry all commonly used condiments? Because as the original article explains, there is a law requiring Wal-Mart to carry all commonly prescribed medicines.

As I said before you can get them free at planned parenthood. You can also go, probably across the street, to another pharmacy. This is nothing more than a frivolous lawsuit designed to attack the big bad WalMart. Booga booga!

[al_bundy]

Is there a law requiring PP to carry all commonly used condiments? Because as the original article explains, there is a law requiring Wal-Mart to carry all commonly prescribed medicines.


if there is no demand in the local area, doesn't mean they have to keep it in stock. there are a lot of drugs that people have to wait for just because there isn't a lot of demand for them in the local area.

[joeblow69]

As I said before you can get them free at planned parenthood.
You act as if there's a planned parenthood on the corner of every block. Mississippi has one. Alabama has one. Not very convenient for people to get to when you need to take a pill where time is of the essense.

[grundle]

Is there a law requiring PP to carry all commonly used condiments? Because as the original article explains, there is a law requiring Wal-Mart to carry all commonly prescribed medicines.
Is the after morning pill "commonly prescribed?"

[al_bundy]

You act as if there's a planned parenthood on the corner of every block. Mississippi has one. Alabama has one. Not very convenient for people to get to when you need to take a pill where time is of the essense.


there are plenty of other pharmacies one can go to

CVS, WalGreens, Rite Aid, supermarket pharmacies, costco

[JasonF]

Is the after morning pill "commonly prescribed?"

That's a question of fact for the jury.

[mosquitobite]

Most "morning after" pills are in fact regular birth control pills prescribed in a mega dose. You take 4, then another four 8 hrs later.

So, in theory, they are probably commonly prescribed. (as regular birth control pills)

Just thought I'd throw that out there. ;)

[kms_md]

Most "morning after" pills are in fact regular birth control pills prescribed in a mega dose. You take 4, then another four 8 hrs later.

So, in theory, they are probably commonly prescribed. (as regular birth control pills)

Just thought I'd throw that out there. ;)

yep. just do a google search for "yuzpe method". basically you need 100mcg of ethinyl estradiol (and whatever progesterone tags along for the ride in the BC formulation) taken twice over a 12 hour period.

ETA - if they want their ob/gyn to write a script that can be filled at wally world, he can just write for a single pack of OCPs "taken as directed".

[mosquitobite]

That's what I was thinking kms. The DR probably prescribed them in morning after form instead of just as birth control pills. :shrug: WalMart might have a policy against that (the morning after form of prescription). Therefore they say they don't have them, and the time it takes to "order" them is past the 72hours needed to take them in order for them to be effective.

In any event, I don't think the women should be able to sue. And I don't think the government has the right to force WalMart to sell anything. It's absurd!

[Numanoid]

there are plenty of other pharmacies one can go to

CVS, WalGreens, Rite Aid, supermarket pharmacies, costcoThat's a myopic view. Not everyone lives in a big city or suburb.

My home town has a Super Wal-Mart. That's it. No other drug stores. No other pharmacies. Super Wal-Mart.

[Josh H]

There's no such thing as "accidentally" having sex.

It was accidentally having sex without birth control. Not accidentally have sex.

That can happen several ways.

1. Condom breaks or is defective and leaks
2. Alcohol (though that's not totally accidental since the choice was made to drink).
3. Some other medicine interferes with the birth control pill unknowingly


But anyway, to the topic. I think pharmacies should carry all commonly prescribed medicines, but they shouldn't be required to.

I'd just boycott the store (I don't set foot in wal-mart as is) that refused to carry because I don't think stores should pass on a drug for probably moral reasons. And plus if I take a prescription to the a pharmacy and they don't stock or are out of that drug, I go elsewhere and don't go back to that pharmacy again. Just personal principle.

[GFM]

That's a myopic view. Not everyone lives in a big city or suburb.


This is Massachusetts we're talking about. It's not like you have to drive more than 10 miles to find a CVS or Walgreens pretty much anywhere in the state. I have to drive 20 miles to buy DVD's, but I think if I got knocked up (and was female), I'd be willing to drive at least that. Plus you don't have to dodge old people with carriages at CVS.

[grundle]

Most "morning after" pills are in fact regular birth control pills prescribed in a mega dose. You take 4, then another four 8 hrs later.

So, in theory, they are probably commonly prescribed. (as regular birth control pills)

Just thought I'd throw that out there. ;)
Since Wal Mart already sells birth control pills, the woman could just get a prescription for those, and her doctor could tell her to take them in the way that you described.

[grundle]

BOSTON - Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.


Why would an abortion rights group care about the morning after pill?

[kms_md]

Since Wal Mart already sells birth control pills, the woman could just get a prescription for those, and her doctor could tell her to take them in the way that you described.

which is pretty much the whole point. if she is in an area served EXCLUSIVELY by wally world, then a woman's physician (FP, ob/gyn, whatever ...), can write an rx for OCPs as opposed to plan b or preven (which are actually more expensive than a single pack of monophasic OCPs, IIRC).

edited to correct spelling

[Josh H]

Why would an abortion rights group care about the morning after pill?

Because they support women's rights to have full access to any method of birth control and abortion. So the morning after pill is clearly in their domain of interest, even if it's not technically an abortion drug (since it won't work if the conception is completed.

[kms_md]

Because they support women's rights to have full access to any method of birth control and abortion. So the morning after pill is clearly in their domain of interest, even if it's not technically an abortion drug (since it won't work if the conception is completed.

typically MAP (morning after pills) work by suppressing ovulation, thickening cervical mucous preventing and limiting sperm mobility, and by preventing implantation. prevention of implantation can be interpreted by some as causing an abortion.

[movielib]

I'd just boycott the store... that refused to carry because I don't think stores should pass on a drug for probably moral reasons...Just personal principle.
That's exactly what I would do.

[Josh H]

prevention of implantation can be interpreted by some as causing an abortion.

Oh I know. I was just pointing out to grundle why the pro-choice groups would campaing in support of the morning after pill even IF everyone ageed it wasn't abortion (which clearly isn't the case).

[MadMark]

This is just another Wal Mart witch hunt (and money grab):

A more complete version of the AP story: (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/REPOSITORY/602020349/1002/NEWS02)

Three Massachusetts women backed by pro-abortion rights groups sued Wal-Mart yesterday, saying the retail giant violated a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.

The suit filed seeks a court order compelling the company to stock the so-called "morning after pill," in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts, all of which have pharmacies.

"Wal-Mart apparently thinks it is above the law," said Sam Perkins, a lawyer for the three plaintiffs.

The suit, backed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts and Jane Doe Inc., argues Wal-Mart is violating a state policy that requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines." They are suing to force compliance with the regulation through the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

"Massachusetts pharmacies are required to stock all medications that are commonly prescribed to meet the usual needs of the community," Perkins said.

Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said the company "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but he declined to elaborate.

However, in a letter to Perkins regarding the lawsuit, Wal-Mart attorney John Delaney wrote that Wal-Mart has "long had the corporate policy of declining to make available EC (emergency contraception) medication, based on, among other things, a view that EC medication is not 'commonly prescribed' and within the 'usual needs of the community.'"

Delaney also wrote that if a Wal-Mart pharmacy doesn't carry a certain prescription, the pharmacist is instructed to refer the customer to a different drug store.

He added that Wal-Mart would formally request clarification of the state regulation from Attorney General Tom Reilly or the state's Board of Pharmacy. He said if either directs the company to carry certain products, "Wal-Mart will abide."

Fogleman said Wal-Mart stores in Illinois stock Plan B, as required by state law. But the drug is not stocked by Wal-Mart in any other state.

The morning-after pill provides a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Some abortion opponents believe emergency contraception is a form of abortion because it blocks the fertilized egg from being implanted on the uterine wall.

The plaintiffs are Katrina McCarty, 29, of Somerville, Julia Battel, 37, of Boston, and Dr. Rebekah Gee, 30, of Boston. All three were turned away when they tried to buy emergency contraception pills at area Wal-Marts.

The women said they knew they would be refused when they went to the Wal-Marts in Quincy and Lynn and that the action was planned with the abortion rights groups and lawyers.

CVS, the state's largest pharmacy chain, stocks the pill at all of its pharmacy locations, as do the state's other major pharmacy chains.

"I did this on behalf of my patients," said Gee, who is completing her residency at Brigham and Women's/Massachusetts General Hospitals in Obstetrics and Gynecology. "Women shouldn't be refused needed medication."

The lawsuit also seeks $25 in damages for each woman, plus attorneys' fees, which is all they're entitled to under the state's consumer protection law. Perkins has asked Wal-Mart to settle the matter within 30 days.


Perkins did not know of similar lawsuits against Wal-Mart in other states

Whether or not you agree with Wal Mart's policy, this isn't a story of three desparate women with nowhere else to turn being denied their prescriptions. This was a well planned and organized "hit" against Wal Mart.
(I am not a fan of Wal Mart)

[Michael Ballack]

A better question is why people who are against abortion, are also against birth control that could prevent someone from having an abortion.

[mikehunt]

Yes or no answer please: Are you in favor of the availabilty of abortion as an option?

early term yes

but the term pro abortion implies pushing that as the first or only choice when a woman doesn't want to raise a kid, which is why I say that pro choice does not equal pro abortion

[JasonF]

This is just another Wal Mart witch hunt (and money grab):

Whether or not you agree with Wal Mart's policy, this isn't a story of three desparate women with nowhere else to turn being denied their prescriptions. This was a well planned and organized "hit" against Wal Mart.
(I am not a fan of Wal Mart)

It's not a money grab (you even bolded the part that says their damages are limited to $25). Rather, the organizaers want to force Wal-Mart to change its policy and set up a test case in order to do so.

[Sdallnct]

It's not a money grab (you even bolded the part that says their damages are limited to $25). Rather, the organizaers want to force Wal-Mart to change its policy and set up a test case in order to do so.

No it is a money grab FOR THE ATTORNEY!

Again, these stupid frivolous suits are about the attorney and not the "person hurt".

Wal-Mart in the article came right out and said it: if it is the law to carry it, we will carry it. They are asking for clarification from the state.

[grundle]

I wonder how our pro-abortion, libertarian members feel about this? The must be conflicted. ;)
I am pro choice. I am against the government getting involved in this.

So Wal Mart doesn't want to sell it. Then that creates a market niche for some other business to sell it. That's capitalism.

Why do you think I would be conflicted over this?

[Dead]

Most "morning after" pills are in fact regular birth control pills prescribed in a mega dose. You take 4, then another four 8 hrs later.

So, in theory, they are probably commonly prescribed. (as regular birth control pills)

Just thought I'd throw that out there. ;)


Assuming this is accurate, it might explain Wal-Mart's problem with stocking it. Given that birth control pills are generally a prepack, they would have to stock a completely different form to fill these prescriptions. That form probably isn't "commonly prescribed" as it has a very limited use. If BC pills were generally counted out and dropped in a bottle, that would seem to change the situation completely.

With that said, I don't think the government should be able to force a company to stock a particular product. If it's that important to the public, then the market will provide it. If I want to open a pharmacy that only stocks BC, and nothing else, then I should be able to do so without government interference.

[Mad Dawg]

With that said, I don't think the government should be able to force a company to stock a particular product. If it's that important to the public, then the market will provide it. If I want to open a pharmacy that only stocks BC, and nothing else, then I should be able to do so without government interference.

:up:

The answer is simple to me. If they just slap a "fullscreen" label on the packaging, Wal-Mart will have it on the shelves tomorrow.

[kms_md]

:up:

The answer is simple to me. If they just slap a "fullscreen" label on the packaging, Wal-Mart will have it on the shelves tomorrow.

:lol:

btw, preven and plan b are basically regular OCPs in an expensive blister pack.

[MadMark]

It's not a money grab (you even bolded the part that says their damages are limited to $25). Rather, the organizaers want to force Wal-Mart to change its policy and set up a test case in order to do so.
:blush: Oops, didn't read that as carefully as I thought. (Although, I doubt the attorneys are working pro bono)

The regulation being used here is so vague, either side could use it:
The pharmacy or pharmacy department shall maintain on the premises at all times a sufficient variety and supply of medicinal chemicals and preparations which are necessary to compound and dispense commonly prescribed medications in accordance with the usual needs of the community.
Obviously, neither side is going to agree on what constitues a "commonly prescribed medication" or what the "usual needs of the community" are.

Regardless of what the state decides, its not going to make much of a difference to those in the real world. (The activists will get their usual PR victory) There are about 30 pharmacies within a 5 mile radius of the store in Quincy, for example, so women who need the drug have plenty of alternatives and if the state sides with Wal Mart, it's hardly a victory for those opposed to the drug.

[grundle]

My vote is for Wal Mart to be able to choose.

[classicman2]

I suggest we have a poll on the poll on the monring pill and Walmart.

[CRM114]

They don't have to stock it, but they should be required to fill any prescription if they bill themselves as a "pharmacy." Thats all we need, "pharmacies" choosing which medications they wish to sell. Pharmacies should have some level of regulation. The price of doing business with prescribed medication.

[Josh H]

They should carry, but the government shouldn't be able to force them.

As I said in the other thread, I'd just boycott any pharmacy that didn't carry it, as I don't think its up to pharmacies to decide which medicines one can get, that's the the job of the doctor who wrote the perscriptions.

But at the same time, it's not the governments job to require pharmacies to carry things.

So I just wouldn't shop at one that doesn't carry what I want. I've changed pharmacies various times through the years as I change as soon as they don't carry, or don't have in stock, what I was prescribed. I view that as not providing the service I want for them to get my money, and give one of the other thousand pharmacies around my business.

But I do see where this is an issue in extremely small towns were wal-mart is the only pharmacy left as the person then has to drive to the next town, which is inconvenient and can increase risk of pregnancy some in this case as the sooner you get on these pills the better.

[CRM114]

I don't agree. Pharmacies are a special entity that is tightly controlled by the government. It is tightly controlled primarily because it dispenses controlled substances. Upon granting a license to a company the government is giving a company millions of dollars in profits in exchange for the orderly and controlled dispensation of drugs. If we lived in a country where pharmacies were not regulated, then I'd have no issue with pharmacies "going their own way." ANY legal prescription should be filled by any one claiming to be a "Pharmacy."

[kms_md]

if they choose not to stock it solely because of business concerns (ie it does not generate sufficient profit, or causes an unacceptable business loss), then they should not be required to stock it. as i posted in the previous thread, there are much more inexpensive, effective options available amongst the drugs walmart currently stocks.

ETA -- correct spelling

[OldDude]

If the pharmacies in town refuse to carry something legal, should the doctors and clinics have the right to dispense, as well as prescribe? If so, then I could support the right of the pharmacy not to carry it. If the goal is to prevent women's access, and the pharmacies would oppose the doctors dispensing, then I agree with the state forcing them. If meeting the customer's legitimate medical need isn't more important than their personal opinion, perhaps these people are in the wrong profession.

[JasonF]

I think all pharmacies should be required to stock any medication that might be taken on a time-sensitive basis. "Time-sensitive," in this case means that you have to take it within X hours and it would take the pharmacy longer than X hours to order it.

[Vandelay_Inds]

I think all pharmacies should be required to stock any medication that might be taken on a time-sensitive basis. "Time-sensitive," in this case means that you have to take it within X hours and it would take the pharmacy longer than X hours to order it.

:up:

I'm siding with JasonF on this one.

[movielib]

If the pharmacies in town refuse to carry something legal, should the doctors and clinics have the right to dispense, as well as prescribe? If so, then I could support the right of the pharmacy not to carry it. If the goal is to prevent women's access, and the pharmacies would oppose the doctors dispensing, then I agree with the state forcing them. If meeting the customer's legitimate medical need isn't more important than their personal opinion, perhaps these people are in the wrong profession.
The nondispensing pharmacies have no more right to stop or get the government to stop someone else from dispensing than the government or anyone else has the right to force the pharmacies to dispense.

[movielib]

I don't agree. Pharmacies are a special entity that is tightly controlled by the government. It is tightly controlled primarily because it dispenses controlled substances. Upon granting a license to a company the government is giving a company millions of dollars in profits in exchange for the orderly and controlled dispensation of drugs. If we lived in a country where pharmacies were not regulated, then I'd have no issue with pharmacies "going their own way." ANY legal prescription should be filled by any one claiming to be a "Pharmacy." [emphasis added by movielib]
:up: to the bolded part and that's the way I'd like it to be.

[JasonF]

:up: to the bolded part and that's the way I'd like it to be.

Can I interest you in a bottle of Dr. Quack's Snake Oil? It cures all your ailments, from arthritis to bronchitis to cholera. Just a spoonful 'll do'ya! Why, this gentleman over here was blind until he had some of Dr. Quack's Snake Oil and now he's got eyesight like an eagle. This poor war veteran over here had his knees shot off in the war, but thanks to a spoonful of Dr. Quack's Snake Oil, he's doing cartwheels!

(We tried to have an unregulated market for medicines. It wasn't the utopia libertarians make it out to be).

[VinVega]

I voted Wal Mart should decide. This latest tight-assed response by that company is yet another reason to avoid them if you have the financial means to do so.

[wendersfan]

I don't agree. Pharmacies are a special entity that is tightly controlled by the government. It is tightly controlled primarily because it dispenses controlled substances. Upon granting a license to a company the government is giving a company millions of dollars in profits in exchange for the orderly and controlled dispensation of drugs. If we lived in a country where pharmacies were not regulated, then I'd have no issue with pharmacies "going their own way." ANY legal prescription should be filled by any one claiming to be a "Pharmacy."This is an interesting line of thought. So what you are arguing is that basically, "with rights comes responsibilities". It's hard to imagine most conservatives having a problem with that. ;)

[movielib]

Can I interest you in a bottle of Dr. Quack's Snake Oil? It cures all your ailments, from arthritis to bronchitis to cholera. Just a spoonful 'll do'ya! Why, this gentleman over here was blind until he had some of Dr. Quack's Snake Oil and now he's got eyesight like an eagle. This poor war veteran over here had his knees shot off in the war, but thanks to a spoonful of Dr. Quack's Snake Oil, he's doing cartwheels!

(We tried to have an unregulated market for medicines. It wasn't the utopia libertarians make it out to be).
Well, with all this regulation we still have homeopathy, reflexology, naturopathy, psychic surgery, "Chinese medicine," faith healing, chiropractic and a host of others that are all 90%-100% "snake oil" (with chiropractic being "only" about 90% and then on up with the rest). The only thing is the practitioners can't call themselves medical doctors but the designation "alternative medicine" more often than not saves them from legal trouble of practicing medicine without a license or whatever. Almost every mall in America has a "snake oil" store such as GNC. And my own bookstores probably sell ten times as much out of the alternative medicine section as out of the medical section.

I think "alternative medicine" virtually always means "alternative to what works." I'm one of the biggest opponents to that crap there is. But I don't see how all this regulation "protects" us from it. Hell, the government can't even completely stop that ultimate quack, Kevin Trudeau. I think private firms that could build up a record of honesty and accuracy in medical assessments could do just as good a job as the government (better, actually, at far less cost) and could give "seals of approval" much like Underwriters Laboratories does in its field. And the government could still "regulate" in the area of fraudulant claims by "alternative" practitioners (dealing with the initiatiation of force and fraud is one of the few legitimate - as far as I am concerned - areas of government action) without the crippling overregulation we have today. They could probably do a much better job in that area (they do very little now) if they weren't trying to do everything else.

I do tire of people accusing libertarians of being something like spaced-out believers in "Utopia." I know of no libertarian who thinks economic plus personal freedom would usher in "Utopia," be a "panacea," or make everything "perfect." I believe in freedom because (1) I think it is moral, and (2) I think it would make things better, not perfect.

In any case, government regulation has been discussed to death on our forum and what we know is that there are those for it and against it and no one ever changes his or her mind. I do not feel up to another of those two page arguments so I am invoking Red Dog's famous "smoking regulation" timetable, modified to apply to medical regulation, and bowing out on this subject. ;)

[mikehunt]

Wal Mart should decide whether or not to sell it.

[jfoobar]

Absolutely Wal-Mart should be able to decide. While I agree somewhat with JasonF's reasoning about the government regulation of pharmacies, this is not pharamceutical for the treatment for sickle cell or Hodgkins. It's a chemical abortion pill. Big difference and they should have the right to not vend it from their stores, even if it is a prescription medicine.

Oh, and for the record, I loathe Wal-Mart.

[JasonF]

Absolutely Wal-Mart should be able to decide. While I agree somewhat with JasonF's reasoning about the government regulation of pharmacies, this is not pharamceutical for the treatment for sickle cell or Hodgkins. It's a chemical abortion pill. Big difference and they should have the right to not vend it from their stores, even if it is a prescription medicine.

Oh, and for the record, I loathe Wal-Mart.

What if I'm a pharmacist who thinks sickle cell or Hodgkins are God's punishment, and therefore shouldn't be medically treated? Do I have the right not to stock and sell the medications that treat those?

[Goldblum]

What if I'm a pharmacist who thinks sickle cell or Hodgkins are God's punishment, and therefore shouldn't be medically treated? Do I have the right not to stock and sell the medications that treat those?
Maybe, maybe not. But either way, that's not the issue here.

[JasonF]

Maybe, maybe not. But either way, that's not the issue here.

:hscratch: It's not? Are certain moral convictions privileged ("Abortion is wrong and the morning after pill is abortion") while others aren't ("Hodgkins is God's punishment and should not be treated")?

[Sdallnct]

:hscratch: It's not? Are certain moral convictions privileged ("Abortion is wrong and the morning after pill is abortion") while others aren't ("Hodgkins is God's punishment and should not be treated")?

Did I miss the part where Wal-Mart states this is a moral issue? In fact they say they carry it in Il where it is specifically required by law and they are asking for clarification in this state. You really think Wal-Mart would take a moral stand over making $$? You may be the 1st person I have heard trying to argue that Wal-Mart has morals!

If there is money to be made, I have no doubt that Wal-Mart would be selling it. In fact, they would probably contact the manufacture and force them to sell it to them at lower prices, slap a yellow smiley face on it and put it on an end cap!

[Ranger]

I think what could be a reasonable compromise is having all the pharmacies publicly disclose what medicines they do not sell rather than having people find out the hard way at the pharmacy.

Doctors should be able to easily access this infomation so it would be easier for them to refer people to pharmacies that will distribute the prescribed drug.

[grundle]

I see that my poll has been merged with someone else's thread.

Soon, I will have a miracle hybrid with the loyalty of a cat, and the cleanliness of a dog!

[grundle]

I wonder how our pro-abortion, libertarian members feel about this? The must be conflicted. ;)
I am pro choice. I am against the government getting involved in this.

So Wal Mart doesn't want to sell it. Then that creates a market niche for some other business to sell it. That's capitalism.

Why do you think I would be conflicted over this?

(By the way, this is the third that I've asked you this question in this thread. You haven't answered yet. I am curious to know your answer. Please answer. Thank you.)

On edit: Oh. You have that emoticon thingee. I guess you were being sarcastic. OK.

[OldDude]

WalMart has been ordered to carry it by state pharmacy board.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/health/7050200/detail.html
Wal-Mart Ordered To Stock Contraceptives In Mass.

POSTED: 2:39 pm EST February 14, 2006
UPDATED: 3:37 pm EST February 14, 2006

BOSTON -- The state board that oversees pharmacies voted Tuesday to require Wal-Mart to stock emergency contraception pills at its Massachusetts pharmacies, a spokeswoman at the Department of Public Health said.

The unanimous decision by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy comes two weeks after three women sued Wal-Mart in state court for failing to carry the so called "morning after" pill in its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the state.

The women argue state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The board has sent a letter to Wal-Mart lawyers informing them of the decision, said health department spokeswoman Donna Rheaume. Wal-Mart has until Thursday to provide written compliance.

Dan Fogleman, a spokesman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said the company hadn't heard about the decision, but would comply with any order.

Wal-Mart carries the pill in Illinois only, where it is required under state law. The company has said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but declined to elaborate.

[bhk]

Next: lawsuits against Wal-Mart because someone is going to bleed to death from one of these pills.

[shifrbv]

Next: lawsuits against Wal-Mart because someone is going to bleed to death from one of these pills.

Uh...this is not RU486. The worst that can happen is an ectopic pregnancy in which case one might wonder why the pro-lifer's believe it's OK for a fetus to have the right to threaten a mother's life but not the other way around.

[OldDude]

They'll carry Plan B everywhere, effective March 20

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/wireStory?id=1686370&gma=true&gma=true

Officials of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced Friday the company will reverse its earlier policy and stock emergency contraception pills in all of its pharmacies effective March 20, saying the giant retailer could not justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not to carry the morning-after pill.

The announcement comes after Massachusetts last month ordered the world's largest retailer to stock the so-called Plan B pill, following a lawsuit by three Boston women against Wal-Mart.

Illinois also requires pharmacies to carry the prescription drug, and those are the only two states where Wal-Mart has so far stocked emergency contraception.

"We expect more states to require us to sell emergency contraceptives in the months ahead," said Ron Chomiuk, vice president of pharmacy for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart.

"Because of this, and the fact that this is an FDA-approved product, we feel it is difficult to justify being the country's only major pharmacy chain not selling it," Chomiuk said in a statement.

Chomiuk said the company will maintain its conscientious objection policy, which it said is consistent with the tenets of the American Pharmaceutical Association. The policy, except where prohibited by law, allows any Wal-Mart or Sam's Club pharmacy employee who does not feel comfortable dispensing a prescription to refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy.

Wal-Mart has more than 3,700 pharmacies in the United States, it said.

It has previously said it "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons," but has refused to elaborate. A Wal-Mart lawyer in the Massachusetts lawsuit said the company did not believe that emergency contraception was commonly prescribed or within the "usual needs of the community."

Plan B contains a higher dose of the hormones in regular birth control pills. It cuts the chances of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if used within 72 hours of unprotected sex. The earlier it's taken, the more effective it is.

[Rockmjd23]

club whores everywhere are rejoicing...